Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

Wednesday, October 1, 2003
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408

Adopted November 5, 2003

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by President Fillon.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Sonya Harris, Secretary

2. President's Announcements.

President Fillon said that he wanted to notify members of the Commission to be careful not to bring up personnel issues during the meeting. President Fillon stated a representative of a Local 21 notified the BIC that at a previous meeting this was done and was not under the jurisdiction of the Commission as specific personnel issues are not to be discussed during the meeting.

3. Director's Reports. [Director Frank Chiu]

a. Report on DBI vehicles assigned to nighttime drivers and status of parking lot for DBI vehicles.

Director Chiu said that Commission Guinnane requested this item and had requested a list of the DBI employees who are taking vehicles home for garaging and for the purpose of emergency response. Director Chiu said that just because these employees are on this list it did not mean that all of them were getting premium pay. Director Chiu reported that at any time there is only one person that is being paid and there is a rotation every three or four months to make sure that things are fair and equitable. Commissioner Guinnane said that he understood that there was one Senior Inspector and one Engineer on premium pay. Director Chiu asked Deputy Director Hutchinson to speak on this issue. Mr. Hutchinson said that Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau is also an Engineer and Mr. Lau gets a small stipend, not round the clock pay, for doing this. Mr. Hutchinson stated that Mr. Lau is the Engineer of record and there is one Inspector available. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were only one or two individuals getting paid for emergency response why were there still eighteen cars going home and how were the individuals selected. Commissioner Guinnane said that he also asked about the cars that are being parked in the lot, as he understood there was a lot of vandalism on these cars. Commissioner Guinnane asked what was being done about that situation. Director Chiu said that this has always been a concern and initially that was why the Department encouraged the Inspectors to take the cars home to avoid vandalism. Director Chiu said that Mr. Hutchinson had spoken to Real Estate and to Steve Young to see what else could be done about vandalism.

Director Chiu said that in response to Commissioner Guinnane's question about the eighteen people who take cars home at night, a lot of these people are not just building Inspectors and sometimes the Department has to call on a Plumbing or Electrical Inspector. Director Chiu stated that DBI is part of the City's emergency team and said that it is wise to have people available in case of an emergency who would not have to go back to the lot.

b. Report on the options of draft procedure to process major alteration/unlawful demolition projects.

Director Chiu said that this is an area that staff and the Commission have been trying to deal with in how to do a better job in enforcing the law because there is no doubt that the current Code is very vague and hard to enforce. Director Chiu said that at the last meeting he informed the Commission that he was going to work with Deputy Directors Jim Hutchinson and William Wong to come up some kind of language to aid the Department in doing a better job, not at the tail end of the permit issue, but at the front end. Director Chiu referred to an outline and said that this was an interim procedure that could be put in place without making any changes to the Code. Director Chiu said that there was a proposal to amend the Code that Supervisor Jake McGoldrick is working on, but said that the Department should not wait until that is adopted.

Director Chiu said that one of the things the Department learned from the public is that the public is aware of alteration projects, but not the extent of the demolition on a lot of the projects. Director Chiu stated that notification has been the problem and the Department was taking the language from the demolition permit where it states that neighbors within a 300' radius must be notified and this would be at the permit filing stage and at issuance. Director Chiu said that this should be sufficient to notify everybody as to what is being proposed. Director Chiu said that Mr. Hutchinson also came up with the idea to notify people on the DBI website. Director Chiu said that the Department would ask for a separate demolition plan, floor plans and elevation plans. Director Chiu stated that most often neighborhood people cannot comprehend reading the floor plan by itself, but it would be clearer if the elevation plans of all sides of the project were included.

Director Chiu reported that another issue the Department wanted to address was that people come in with multiple permits due to dry rot or some revision and permits are issued over the counter. Director Chiu said that now, if these projects trigger the removal of two-thirds or more these permits will not be issued over the counter unless they are routed to the original Plan Checker who would know the exact scope of the work. Director Chiu said that it would be flagged into the system not to allow any over the counter permits. Director Chiu stated that this was the plan the Department came up with to try as catch as many of these types of projects as possible at the front end rather than trying to enforce this at the tail end. Director Chiu asked Deputy Directors Hutchinson and Wong to speak on how this interim program might impact the Department. Director Chiu said that he would encourage the Commission to give the Department more direction and input to move forward to implement this interim policy.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that everyone is concerned at the Department, Plan Checkers, Building Inspection and Management because they don't want to have the problem where people under an alteration permit remove the building. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the reality is that for the past ten years in San Francisco DBI has been struggling with this and over the past few years this Code went from the Planning Code to the Building Code. Mr. Hutchinson said that Supervisor McGoldrick stopped him a few weeks ago to ask him his thoughts on this matter. Mr. Hutchinson said that he told the Supervisor that clearly construction people are not planners and this really should never have left the Planning Code. Mr. Hutchinson said that over the years DBI and the Commission has made attempts to clarify the language, but the public for whatever reason shot down those ideas and improvements. Mr. Hutchinson said that later on the calendar there was a case on Junipero Serra that members of the public were present to speak about. Mr. Hutchinson said that the definition in the Code is very difficult to interpret and said that even Judy Boyajian who wrote the Code years ago is very concerned about it because she knows there are some problems with it. Mr. Hutchinson said that he felt if the Department could implement this interim policy it would stop these projects either at filing or before they go out the door there would not be the problem where neighbors wake up and a building is gone. Mr. Hutchinson said that clearly this needs to be stopped at the plan checking stage. Mr. Hutchinson reported that DBI issues over 50,000 permits per year and this is not an issue with even 1% of those permits; it is probably a dozen or less cases a year and stated that he did not want the public to have the impression that this is a widespread problem. Mr. Hutchinson said that there were about five cases right now that the Department is looking at and an unlawful demolition hearing was held last week with two to be calendared including the Junipero Serra project.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that two-thirds was too much to come up with that amount of the house being gone to declare unlawful demolition. Commissioner Guinnane said that if someone were to buy a house with the intent to get the whole house down. Commissioner Guinnane said that someone could go in and strip all the walls and find that one side of the house is completely rotten; they could leave that wall alone and take down two-thirds of the good side and then call the City and say that the other side of the house is rotten. Commissioner Guinnane asked how the Department could control this sort of situation. Mr. Hutchinson said that right now the Code would mandate that they take it down. Mr. Hutchinson said that the design professionals are not doing their due diligence because they need to get in and do the destructive testing to know what the condition of those walls are. Mr. Hutchinson said that the design professionals would not be able to find everything, but should find what is within reason and if not the Department should stop this because the design professional should know that the walls are dry rotted; DBI should not issue the permit as an alteration as it ought to be a demolition permit with a new building permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that he no problem with someone gutting the inside of the house, but the whole issue is taking down two-thirds of the outside structure itself. Commissioner Guinnane said that the inside should not be a factor and everyone has the same story that the walls are rotten.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the studs in the ground floor and look at the mudsill there was no fungus damage or rot whatsoever. Director Chiu asked Commissioner Guinnane if he was saying that two-thirds is too much. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would say that 50% should be the trigger and stated that the Code says two-thirds. Commissioner Santos said that this would mean that an owner could do whatever they wanted on the inside as this was only referring to the exterior. Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct. Commissioner Santos asked if foundations would be exempt. Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct.

President Fillon asked if this would be a change to the spirit of the Code, as it now exists. Director Chiu said that it is up to DBI and the Commission to determine what it is. Director Chiu said that there had been another suggestion of 75% that he thought was too much. Commissioner Guinnane said that the description of the work being done should be cleaned up to spell out exactly what is being done. President Fillon said that this would be one of the new requirements, that the plans be separate showing what the demolition is and what the new construction would be. Director Chiu said that the superimposed plans are not that easy to read.

Commissioner Santos spoke about someone applying for a permit and being able to qualify under an alteration permit, but during construction it is discovered that one of the exterior walls is all rotted. Commissioner Santos asked what avenue the customer would have at that point and stated that would the customer would have to go back to the original Plan Checker and could not get an over-the-counter permit. Commissioner Santos asked if the customer would have to go back and apply for a demolition permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that this would really be a hardship. Director Chiu said that his intention would be that the project manager would have to notify the 300 foot radius again and that would teach the project manager to know what the project is about. Director Chiu said that this would deter a lot of these kinds of permits. Commissioner Santos said that he was asking about a customer who had no malicious intent at all, but the dry rot was simply missed. Director Chiu said that he would say that the 300-foot radius should be imposed again in order to stop this once and for all and the project sponsor should know what is going on with the property. President Fillon said that in the City these are the typical kinds of projects where it is a remodel of a semi-old building with rot and damage hidden until the walls are opened up. Director Chiu said that this is now the loophole and it happening over and over. Director Chiu said that this would teach everyone a lesson and said that this was the only way to stop people from coming in with multiple permits. Commissioner Marks said that she would agree with Director Chiu and Commissioner Guinnane suggesting the 50% rather than two-thirds and renotification in the event of an alteration.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in talking about the 300-foot radius and in looking at the Juniper Serra property that was mentioned versus a house in the Richmond or a house in the Sunset. Commissioner Guinnane said that on Junipero Serra there are only two houses on one block and then there is a street on both sides, which means that the notification of the 300-foot radius does not cover very many neighbors. Commissioner Guinnane stated that with 75' lots, maybe the 300-foot notification was not enough.

Deputy Director William Wong said that the 300-foot notice was a big improvement over what is currently done because on an alteration project only the adjacent lots are notified so the 300-foot radius should do more that what is currently in the Code. Commissioner Santos asked who paid for the notification and the renotifications. Director Chiu said that right now it is the project sponsor, as the project sponsor has to provide the Department with the labels for the notification. Director Chiu said that the Department pays for the stamps and does the mailing. Commissioner Guinnane said that the stamps were really a small issue. President Fillon said that he thought that the over-the-counter issues would make a big difference. Director Chiu said that this would discourage multiple permits and hopefully everyone would learn to follow the rules.

President Fillon said that it bothered him that this was necessitated by the few players out there that are trying to cheat and everyone ends up paying for it with a tougher process. Commissioner Santos said that unfortunately there is discovery on every remodel. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Commission had to vote on this for the Department. Director Chiu said that he did not need the Commission to vote on anything, but was just looking for direction from the Commission. Director Chiu said that he would be issuing an interim policy based on what was discussed until there is a new regulation to change the Code. Commissioner Guinnane said that in the interim he would move to change the two-thirds to 50% of the exterior walls. President Fillon asked what the next step would be to get this implemented. Director Chiu said that he would go back and work with Deputy Directors Wong and Hutchinson to finalize the office interim procedure and bring it back to the BIC. Director Chiu thanked the Commission for their support.

Mr. John Carney of 829 Rhode Island Street said that he thought this was a good move and said that he would even go to 1/3^rd rather than 50%. Mr. Carney thanked the Commission.

Ms. Maria Sousa introduced herself as a member of the Board of Directors of the Planning Association of the Richmond District. Ms. Sousa said that she was asked by that Board to come and testify on this item as well as item #6. Ms. Sousa stated that her organization was extremely concerned about the illegal demolitions occurring in their neighbor under the guise of permit alterations and did in fact make an appearance at the hearing last week. Ms. Sousa said that if someone were to file for a demolition permit, that automatically triggers the 300-foot radius notice and an automatic DR and what is happening is that people fully intend to demolish, but file for these alleged alterations. Ms. Sousa said that miraculously, even though they have gotten a dry rot inspection, that inspection misses the dry rot in the remaining 30% and in one day they are able to take down the dry rot materials and take it off the site so no one can in fact confirm that there is dry rot. Ms. Sousa stated that she would agree with the previous speaker that the notice should be triggered at 30% and 50% is not enough. Ms. Sousa said that what is going on here is a concerted, sophisticated effort to evade the Codes and all that is happening is that people are getting increasingly angry and cynical about the alleged action of the Building Inspection Department and Commission. Ms. Sousa thanked the Commission.

Mr. Paul Conroy introduced himself as a resident of Ingleside Terrace and stated that he was on the Board of the Ingleside Terrace Home's Association and a delegated to the West of Twin Peaks Central Council and former President of the West of Twin Peaks Central Council which is an umbrella organization of nineteen neighborhood organizations in the West of Twin Peaks area. Mr. Conroy said that the Council and the Ingleside Terrace's Board are very concerned about the issue of demolitions and about notice. Mr. Conroy said that he would echo the comments that were made by the last speaker and said that he would hope that as the BIC is reformulating these regulations that they will have a place to deal with these issues. Mr. Conroy asked that the West of Twin Peaks Council be notified of any hearings regarding unlawful demolitions because they would like to participate in any public discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Conroy thanked the Commission.

c. Report on the draft Administration Bulletin (AB-057) regarding Roof Hatches Serving Stairs to Roofs.

Director Chiu said that item #3c was to inform the Commission about AB-057 regarding roof hatches servicing stairs to roofs and said that in the past the Commission had concern about where there was a four story or more building the Building Code was requiring a stairs leading to the roof. Director Chiu stated that this came up some time last year where some of the developers were proposing stairs and some of these included a penthouse portion, which raised a lot of concern in the neighborhoods. Director Chiu said that the Department was asked by the Commission to solve some of the problems involving City Planning issues and staff spent a lot of time with the Fire Department because the Fire Department has jurisdiction over certain types of occupancies. Director Chiu said that the Fire Department's position is that where there is an addition, they will not allow a roof hatch to act as one of the stairs to the roof. Director Chiu said that DBI had agreed with the Fire Department on buildings of three units or more, the Department has no choice, but to enforce the Building Code to require a real stairs and not a roof hatch. Director Chiu said that for a single family or two family dwelling building, that the Fire Department does not have any jurisdiction over, DBI would continue to allow a roof hatch as a means to the roof. President Fillon said that there are a lot of situations where a roof hatch is the only way to get access.

Mr. John Carney said that he thought that this was a good move forward and stated that there is a building in his neighborhood that came under these new rules, but doesn't seem to have any staircase, but only has a letter. Mr. Carney asked if a ladder is allowable or does it have to be a drop down staircase like those that were once used to get into attics. Director Chiu said that the Code had not been very clear, but it is now his understanding that there has to be a staircase that goes all the way to the roof. Mr. Carney said that maybe the Department should talk to Mr. Kornfield to see what is allowable. Mr. Carney said that this would avoid those doghouses that appeared on the tops of buildings. President Fillon said that he thought it would create more dog houses because the hatches were, a lot of times, in lieu of a doghouse and now the dog house would be required. Mr. Carney stated that there would only be a hatch needed. President Fillon said that this was only for two-units or less, but for anything above that the doghouse would be needed. Mr. Carney said that he thought this was a good improvement.

d. Report on DBI's response to the Mayor's Office and the Board of Supervisors regarding the San Francisco Performance & Review Ordinance.

Director Chiu said that there was a Charter Amendment requiring all Departments, as of October 1, 2003, to turn in a Department Performance Review. Director Chiu apologized for not having the report before the Commissioners until today, but said that this was turned in as a deadline requirement because the Department only had a week or two to complete this report. Director Chiu said that he would like the Commissioners feedback because at some point this report would go to the Board of Supervisors for adoption.

4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

There was no public comment.

5. Report on the construction status of 425 Junipero Serra Blvd. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said that this property located at 425 Junipero Serra Boulevard is close to where he resides and he has been driving by and looking at it for months and what really got his attention was twelve foot sheets of plywood being put up and watching the old house come down. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there were new studs going up on the ground floor and the all of a sudden there was another floor going up on top of the house so he made some inquiries to the City. Commissioner Guinnane said that then there was a complaint made that the house was being demolished and work was going on that was beyond the scope of the initial permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that he went out with Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to look at the property and the owner and his daughter were there. Commissioner Guinnane said that the owner showed him some plans of what had been approved by the City and a copy of the application and basically, what the application said was that a floor was going to be put on top of the existing house. Commissioner Guinnane said that he looked through the whole house and the street level floor has all been removed and rebuilt, the floor and sub-floor has been all changed; the joists and sub-floor and then there is a whole new floor up on top. Commissioner Guinnane said that on the left hand side of the north side of the property there was a couple of studs put back in that were two foot short so obviously the elevation of that street level floor was raised up by a couple of feet. Commissioner Guinnane said that he asked the owner who was the architect of record and the owner told Commissioner Guinnane that his daughter was going to school and was an architect major. Commissioner Guinnane said that at that point he said to the owner that the plan looked like a Jimmy Jen plan and the next breath out of the owner's mouth was that Jimmy Jen did not draw the plans, but a man in Jimmy Jen's office drew them and his daughter dropped her head and would say nothing. Commissioner Guinnane said that he looked around some more and asked the owner if he did any work underneath the house. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he went down below as there is a whole floor completely underneath the house and there is a crawl space of maybe 2'6". Commissioner Guinnane said that there are all brand new walls in this area, 12' - 14" concrete walls some of them three or four feet high and some as high as six feet high. Commissioner Guinnane said that he then asked the owner how he did all of those walls and the owner told the Commissioner that he had employees crawl under the crawl space and they put all those walls in there. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the ceiling there were all new joists put in and there is a whole new sub-floor put down there. Commissioner Guinnane said that the alteration permit was taken out with a valuation of $200,000, but the house itself if it was completely demolished would not be able to cover the lot like it is now; the front of the house would be pushed back. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the garage is completely into the whole lot in the rear and this would not be allowed. Commissioner Guinnane said that his position is that this house, he believes, is unlawful demolition because everything has been changed there and there is very little left. Commissioner Guinnane said that Director Chiu was out to the property with other DBI employees and in a previous discussion about unlawful demolition Director Chiu stated that unlawful demolition is kind of vague, but the Code says two-thirds. Commissioner Guinnane said that he asked Director Chiu how much of this particular house he thought had been changed and Director Chiu told him 95% of the house had been changed. Commissioner Guinnane said that 95% is a lot more than two-thirds so he believes that this house qualifies as an unlawful demolition without getting into a hearing. Commissioner Guinnane stated that this was his view on it and looking at it the way it was done, it was piece by piece that was taken down. Commissioner Guinnane said that the owner told him that a lot of it had been taken down because it was rotten, but Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not see much rot and there was no way to verify this rot; Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that this thing was planned from the very beginning and the fact that there was no architect on record and then when the owner told the Commissioner where the plans came out of he was really troubled about it. Commissioner Guinnane said that this is why he decided to calendar this for today to get some input from the Commission and the public.

Commissioner Guinnane said that this item was actually two parts because he would like to form a sub-committee of three individuals to be the hearing officers, instead of a hearing officer from DPW. President Fillon said that was actually item #6. Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct, as that is the other part of this issue.

Commissioner Guinnane said that Commissioner Santos went out the property the following week and said that he was sure Commissioner Santos would have comments. President Fillon asked Commissioner Guinnane if he asked the owner why he had such a high wall around the site. Commissioner Guinnane said he did not. President Fillon said that he thought that the wall is what really drew attention to the property. Commissioner Guinnane said that this was done piece by piece by. Commissioner Guinnane said that when the owner told him that he did no work down below, Commissioner Guinnane went down and discovered all these concrete floors that obviously weren't done under the crawl space, as the whole floor was taken out and those walls were formed and poured in place. Commissioner Guinnane said that then new joists were put down with all new sub-flooring; basically 90% of that floor was also gone. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the work was being done today, the owner could not have 100% lot coverage and also the property would be set back in the front and there would be a rear yard on the ground in the back. Commissioner Guinnane said that right now the building covers the whole lot except for a front yard.

Commissioner Santos said that he agreed that as far as the lot requirements today, the owner would violate some of the setbacks particularly in the back. Commissioner Guinnane said that in terms of sequence of construction it appears to him that the project sponsor did take some steps to ensure that the City was involved in the process of revising the process and revising the drawings, submitting a new set of drawings and getting permits. Commissioner Santos said that given Director Chiu's interim guidelines this project sponsor would not have been able to do that and would have had to go back to the original Plan Checker. Commissioner Santos stated that during the time of the construction the project sponsor was aware that new permits had to be pulled and he took those steps. Commissioner Santos said that he was not sure that the City was aware that there were a series of permits so ultimately Commissioner Guinnane is correct that a substantial amount of that building is new. Commissioner Santos said that he did not spend a lot of time investigating the proportions or the percentages, but said that one thing he could tell that is unrelated to the construction is that when he went there he was greeted by a series of neighbors, particularly neighbors that live adjacent to this property, and to his surprise they were puzzled that the City had stopped the project. Commissioner Santos said that he was under the impression that the neighbors felt that halting the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Santos stated that he did not mention that there was the possibility of a five-year penalty. Commissioner Santos said that the neighbors had a video camera and asked him some questions, which he was not able to answer because he had not had a chance to review all of the plans. Commissioner Santos said that he neighbors that the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors that lived immediately behind and in front of this property were fully aware of the extend of the work, had reviewed the plans and were in favor of it.

Commissioner Marks said that this just goes to show that if neighbors are notified that does mean that they would automatically protest, but in all favor to the neighbors the project sponsor should go through the process. Commissioner Santos said that the project sponsor did follow the process that was available to him. President Fillon for a staff report on the status of the project.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that on February 13, 2003 the initial permit was filed and the permit application simply said that there was proposed second floor addition to the existing building per plans. Mr. Hutchinson said that in talking about the application process, it is fundamentally flawed and the Department has talked at some length about having a single form permit. Mr. Hutchinson said that he thought that it was imperative that DBI get the plans and fill out the permit application. Mr. Hutchinson said that now people come in now and fill the application out in all manners of handwriting and all manners of grammar that is sometimes hard to follow. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the plans control the work and it is unfair to say that the permit application can be so complete that the project sponsor could put down everything of interest to every neighbor. Mr. Hutchinson said that the applicant is asked to fill out a description and the Department determines the level of notification by this description and the plans control the package. Mr. Hutchinson said that it was clear that there was going to be a second story, but clearly the plans do not show what was eventually going to be there. Mr. Hutchinson said it was a one-story building, 2,800 square feet, going to a two-story building with very different architecture. Mr. Hutchinson stated that today, with what is going on there he wanted to be clear that the project sponsor has not proposed to build a building that will look any different, any higher, any deeper on the lot or any different use than what the neighbors approved. Mr. Hutchinson said that there are problems with the internal elements or things that won't be seen once the building is done. Mr. Hutchinson said that the permit was filed on February 13, and issued on February 14, with the appropriate notice was given to the adjacent neighbors and Planning reviewed it. Mr. Hutchinson stated that construction began on May 7 and there were inspections for the foundation pour that were looked at by both the Inspector and the Senior Inspector. Mr. Hutchinson said that on May 14, a second permit was issued for revisions to the foundation and once again the Senior Inspector looked at it because the Department was getting calls about the extent of work. Mr. Hutchinson said that as of today the job is stopped and the job has not even progressed to the stage where the Department has gotten a call for a framing inspection so DBI staff time out at the project has been very limited. Mr. Hutchinson said based on the Department's investigation of complaints received DBI did stop the job pending a hearing that is going to occur for a potential unlawful demolition that is tentatively scheduled for November 7, 2003.

Mr. Hutchinson said that on June 9, 2003 a complaint was filed because something was being done to an exterior wall; the existing 1'x10' stucco was replaced with plywood. Mr. Hutchinson said that at this time the Department issued a violation and asked the project sponsor to clarify the scope of work and to come in and take out a permit for that work. Mr. Hutchinson stated that on June 20, 2003 a permit was issued addressing that replacement of the stucco with a shear wall after the Department looked at it. Mr. Hutchinson said that on August 1, 2003 another telephone complaint was received that someone thought that there was an unlawful demolition that had occurred at this property and at that point DBI staff went back out and looked at it, stopped the job because there were three alteration permits and the Department needed to hold a hearing. Mr. Hutchinson said that some of the work that he and Commissioner Guinnane looked at that was not covered by the permits was some floor joists and some portions of the walls. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department has not done anything about that work pending the hearing.

Mr. Hutchinson said that when Commissioner Santos went to the property with him they were surprised that there were about a dozen neighbors present and all of their remarks were videotaped. Mr. Hutchinson said that the neighbors asked him if the building had changed from what they looked at, in other words the two-story property that was proposed. Mr. Hutchinson said that he told the neighbors that the two-story structure was on the table, but it was interior elements that the Department was looking at. Mr. Hutchinson said that the neighbors were perplexed and stated that the Department has since heard that there are neighbors who want the hearing to go forward, but he thought that the adjacent neighbors wanted the job to go forward. Mr. Hutchinson said that he thought it would be fair to let the hearing go ahead and everyone would get the chance to voice their support or concern.

Commissioner Guinnane said that on the foundation work that was done on May 4, the application was put in for $3,000 and asked how that number was derived or how it ever got past the City because there was a lot more than $3,000 worth of work done. Commissioner Guinnane said that one he was really concerned about was the application for the removal of stucco and asked Mr. Hutchinson how much stucco was removed and how much shear wall was put up that they maintained was damaged. Mr. Hutchinson said that it was an application to replace south, east and north stucco sheathing with new ½" p.t. plywood, existing top plate to be removed and existing garage 1'by10' siding on first north side to remain. Mr. Hutchison stated that there was a $9,000 value placed on that and the Department increased it to $15,000. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at that application and having the sheathing changed how did the studs get changed and were they all rotten too? Mr. Hutchinson said that he had no idea and that was why there was going to be a hearing. Mr. Hutchinson said that he would have to go back and see if the studs showed on the original permit as the original construction permit showed that the first floor height was increasing so obviously they would have to change all the studs out to accommodate that and that is what the Director and he saw. Mr. Hutchinson said that there were the new studs because of the approved change in ceiling height and then there were the older studs that were sistered on there and if the ceiling height was eight foot and the plan approved a ten foot ceiling height then obviously there had to be new studs. Mr. Hutchinson said that some of this might have been approved under the first permit for the increased ceiling height on the first floor. Commissioner Guinnane said that the whole first floor is completely framed, all of the outside walls, all the plate, the sub-floor, everything was taken down because there was no way that the walls could be framed to get the sheathing underneath those walls. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the north side there were probably maybe ten studs there where they took the old studs and nailed them on there which was eight foot and then they cut a piece of an old stud and nailed it to the very top so there was a break up to the top. Commissioner Guinnane stated that those initially had come out at one time and were put back in. Commissioner Guinnane said that whole floor was completely changed and said that he did not know how that amount of work could be done for such a small amount of money. Mr. Hutchinson said that there were a few issues that were brought up one being the difference between the assessment on a new building and an existing building and what would be allowable to build on this lot as opposed to a new building. Mr. Hutchison said that with a new building the owner would not be allowed to have that much lot coverage. Commissioner Guinnane said that the application was put in for $200,000 and if the Assessor were to pick this up as a new building it would probably be assessed at $1.4M or $1.5. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there would have been differences in the notification process and this project sponsor completely got around the DR process and said he felt that this project was laid out from the beginning to try to circumvent the law. Mr. Hutchinson said that because of all of the inspections that would be required on this building he had no doubt that somewhere on down the road the Department would have issued a correction notice to say that the project was undervalued.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had a friend that went down to the Building Department a couple of weeks ago to get a permit for a bathroom where there was a little plumbing to be done, no wiring, taking off the sheetrock and everything was existing. Commissioner Guinnane said that this person estimated the job to be $5,000 and somebody at the counter said that was too cheap and made it $8,000, which he thought was really excessive. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at 425 Junipero Serra and seeing that the foundations were estimated at $3,000; they should have been $75,000 as there was no way that those foundations could have been put in for $3,000. Commissioner Guinnane asked where was the system when it came to that permit. Mr. Hutchinson said that this is always a cat and mouse business with the public.

Commissioner Guinnane said that there is a real breakdown in the system and said that he wanted to go back a few years to 1980 when he was building a building at 720 Presidio Avenue. Commissioner Guinnane stated that it was three floors over the garage with two units, two units and an owner's unit on top and the Code changed while he was building that allowed him to go from five units to six. Commissioner Guinnane said that the envelope of the building did not change and all he did was split up the top floor and put two kitchens in there. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he put in an application to build the six units and ad in a kitchen without the envelope changing. Commissioner Guinnane said that he estimated the work to be $5,000 yet the City assessed him $70,000 for putting a kitchen in and when he complained about it the response he got was whether he wanted his permit or not. Commissioner Guinnane said that this is why he gets troubled by some of these numbers. Mr. Hutchinson said that people come to him all the time to complain about the fees and said that nine times out of ten he agrees with the public. Mr. Hutchinson said that he felt bad that Commissioner Guinnane had been treated this way and the Department held his permit hostage.

President Fillon said that he thought that Commissioner Guinnane was saying that with fees there is a ballpark number and this is so far out of the ballpark that somebody should have caught it. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could build something for $600,000, but the Assessors Office will assess him for what they think the building is worth. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the Marshall and Swift is the guide for assessing these permits. Mr. Hutchinson said that he would go back and meet with the Plan Checker, Mr. Wong, assess the work and make any adjustment. Mr. Hutchinson said that he would report on this at the next meeting.

Commissioner Brown asked how the complaints were filed. Mr. Hutchinson said that the complaints could be filed anonymously or a person could give their name. Mr. Hutchinson said that it is harder to respond to someone if they file a complaint anonymously; it is easier to be able to call someone back and give them an update on their complaint, but all complaints are public record. Commissioner Brown asked where the complaint came from on this property. Mr. Hutchinson said that there were calls from a few neighbors on this and some were identified so he knew the names of a few of the parties.

Commissioner Santos asked what sort of notification this property went through; was it a 150-foot radius or close to 300. Mr. Hutchinson said that with Building Inspection it was the 150-foot notice, but as Commissioner Guinnane noted that because of Junipero Serra no one would have been notified on the front end and even if there were a 300-foot notice no one would get noticed. Mr. Hutchinson said there would have been better notification on the sides and the back. Mr. Hutchinson said that the President of the homeowners association told him that the association did some sort of notification in their newsletter or on the website, but from DBI it was 150. Mr. Hutchinson said that the owner voluntarily exceeded that because of some of the neighbors that he talked to outside of that range. Commissioner Santos said that if someone called and wanted to file a complaint, they could call from anywhere. Mr. Hutchinson said that someone could call from Europe and file a complaint and it would be treated the same. Mr. Hutchinson said that Planning would have sent out their own notices. President Fillon asked for public comment.

Mr. David Silverman said that he was present on behalf of the owner, Mr. Jimmy Chu at 415 Junipero Serra. Mr. Silverman thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Silverman stated that he would not be addressing the issue of unlawful demolition, as he understood that there was a hearing scheduled and said that he would be prepared to address those issues at that time. Mr. Silverman said that he wanted to let the Commission know that the owner has exceeded the notice requirements and had several meetings with the neighborhood association and spent several Sundays at the site with the neighbors giving tours of the site and providing copies of the plans to all the neighbors. Mr. Silverman said that he thought that several of the neighbors would be at the hearing and said that it was his understanding that the vast majority of the neighbors did support the project. Mr. Silverman stated that it was not clear from what he heard previously that the building envelope did not change on the ground floor and it is exactly the same as it was and the second floor addition was notified pursuant to the 311 process. Mr. Silverman said that the neighbors, at the least the ones that have come to the site and met with him and he has notified everyone within the 200 - 300 feet and beyond are supporting that house. Mr. Silverman stated that the issues that are being discussed are interior walls and also there is discussion about repair and upgrade of exterior walls, but not about the size of the house. Mr. Silverman said that as far as the process, he wanted to assure everyone that at no time did the owner intend anything malicious and has responded to all of the requests that the City has made and has worked closely with the City since this was brought to his attention. Mr. Silverman said that the owner had submitted applications to revise the permits and said that right now the project is stopped and nothing is going on out there. Mr. Silverman said that the owner had hired an Engineer to submit new drawings and right now the owner is awaiting the hearing on the demolition issues. Mr. Silverman said that the owner has been very cooperative and done everything that he has been asked to do and is working through the process. Mr. Silverman thanked the Commission.

President Fillon asked what new drawings were being prepared. Mr. Silverman said that the owner was preparing drawings showing what was there before and what is there now. Mr. Silverman said that he thought that some of the confusion exists because if there is an existing wall and that wall is opened and termite or rot problems are found and it has to be removed then it becomes a question regarding the two-thirds removal and is that a new wall or an existing wall. Mr. Silverman said that he thought that was a source of confusion and said he did not know what the answer would be as the Code does not spell out all of those things. Mr. Silverman said that the Code talks about demolition or not demolition, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty determinations of what actually happens at the job site not all of the details are in the Code and that might have been the cause of some of the confusion. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Silverman if when his client opened up the walls and found that he had this enormous amount of dry rot did he call the City to verify it or did he just take it out and change it. Mr. Silverman stated that he did not know those details.

Commissioner Santos said about the Engineer that the property owner hired. Mr. Silverman said that the owner had hired an Engineer who was going to prepare a set of plans and do a comparison of what was there before and what is there now. Mr. Silverman said that they were trying to make the calculations of the two-thirds.

Mr. Bob Moser said that he lives adjacent to this property around the corner, but the back of the Junipero Serra property is contiguous with his rear yard. Mr. Moser stated that he was at the meeting with Commissioner Santos that he didn't think was a hearing so he did not express his views at that time. Mr. Moser said that the people from the homeowners association were also present and this meeting was virtually the first that they had known of the situation. Mr. Moser said that he thought that the people from the homeowners association were there to gather information and not express views. Mr. Moser said that he wanted to specifically bring up the point that he did get the plans in the mail and did not request a discretionary review, but said that he does oppose the project. Mr. Moser said the reason he did not request the review is because the previous house that was there violated the rear yard requirement and the proposal for the new construction was to keep the back part of the house that violates the rear yard requirement and to build a second-story. Mr. Moser said that he called the Planner and asked if that was legal and the Planner explained that while it would not be permissible as a new house, a new house could go two stories, but it would have to have the rear yard requirement and because the rear portion of the house existed the owner could add a second story as a remodel. Mr. Moser stated that it did not occur to him that the project sponsor was going to completely demolish the previous house and that is the reason why he did not ask for a discretionary review; he was told that the plans were legal. Mr. Moser said that he looks right into this project from his rear window and stated that he took a picture in April of the project showing that the sidewalls were gone, most of the rear wall was gone and it now all gone and the front wall was still there. Mr. Moser stated that the front wall was the one that had the big masonry wall. Mr. Moser said that he heard a little while ago about the permits for the north, east and south walls and the front wall happens to be the west wall. Mr. Moser said that after the twelve-foot plywood went around the house, the next day that west masonry wall came down 100%. Mr. Moser said that he thought that the neighborhood association would correct the impression that Commissioner Santos had that the neighbors support the project, as most of the neighbors that he had spoken to were terribly horrified that there was a demolition of a house in their neighborhood without permit. Mr. Moser said that he was equally horrified and felt that he was hoodwinked by someone who intended to violate the law. Mr. Moser said that he was told that what was going to be done was legal and it turned out that what the owner did this is a totally illegal fashion. Mr. Moser said that this has to be stopped and thanked the Commission for their time.

Mr. Paul Conroy said that as he mentioned earlier he is a member of the board of the Ingleside Terraces Homes Association. Mr. Conroy said that the association follows a fairly rigorous process and the association has not yet held a vote as to whether they believe there should be a finding of an illegal demolition or not. Mr. Conroy said that the association has been conducting an investigation and stated that he was present last Saturday when there was a meeting out at the site. Mr. Conroy said that there has been an effort on the part of the association to discuss matters with the developer and had asked to meet with the developer and an architect last Saturday, but several members showed up and there was no architect. Mr. Conroy said that it was essentially denied that there had been a request for an architect and the daughter even stated that the owner did not expect to hire an architect to come and talk to the association. Mr. Conroy said that he wanted the Commission to know that this project has a significantly detrimental affect on the neighborhood because this row of houses on Junipero Serra is really the entranceway into Ingleside Terraces. Mr. Conroy said that the neighborhood was developed starting in 1912 and the homes along Junipero Serra Spanish style most of which were built in the 1920's and are very important to the neighborhood character and the sense of place that the neighbors have. Mr. Conroy said that this is a very active neighborhood association that takes a lot of pride in the neighborhood and the history. Mr. Conroy said that this monstrosity is completely contrary to that and what is going to be constructed there according to the drawings that were presented to the association is completely out of character. Mr. Conroy said that he expected that when the association meets before the City's meeting, a vote would be taken and given the sentiments of the other board members and neighbors that he has spoken to would expect that the association would ask that the Department determine that this is an illegal demolition. Mr. Conroy stated that he had not spoken to anyone who was in favor of this project. Mr. Conroy said that the neighborhood has CC&Rs and asked that the neighborhood association be given notice of projects such as this where the exterior of the premises is going to be changed. Mr. Conroy said that the neighbors are not out there carrying protest signs because they assume when they see a project out there that the Inspectors for the Department are doing their jobs and what is going up is something that has been approved, is legal and proper. Mr. Conroy said that the neighbors also expect that the law is going to be followed and it is very clear from looking at this that there was intent to demolish from the very beginning. Mr. Conroy said that at one point only the front wall was standing in front of that house, with the windows and the Venetian blinds in a closed position and nothing behind it. Mr. Conroy said that he hoped the Commission would do whatever it could to make sure that this is made right.

Annemarie Conroy introduced herself as a member of Ingleside Terraces and stated that she lived down the street from Paul Conroy. Ms. Conroy said that she really appreciated the Commission's attention today to illegal demolitions particularly with 425 Junipero Serra. Ms. Conroy said that protecting this area is very important to San Francisco because most of the homes in the area were built between 1912 and 1923. Ms. Conroy stated that she moved into a home in the area and restored a home that was built in 1913 and found all kinds of dry rot, but did not need to tear down her home. Ms. Conroy said that everywhere in San Francisco with older homes dry rot is going to be discovered, but as Director Chiu mentioned earlier, if someone is worth their salt as a contractor they are able to do some invasive testing to figure that out before plans are submitted to the Department. Ms. Conroy said that these homes on Junipero Serra really set the tone for the entire neighborhood. Ms. Conroy said that Commissioner Guinnane and Bob Moser have told a true story as the front of this building was left in place with just the windows and the Venetian blinds and suddenly this giant twelve foot structure went up as a wall and that structure was torn down. Ms. Conroy said that Justice Potter Stewart when asked for the definition of pornography said, "You know it when you see it". Ms. Conroy said that this is it for an illegal demolition as there is nothing left of this original house. Ms. Conroy stated that what she heard from staff today that neighbors are not upset about it from either so let it go forward, then the Department is letting someone cheat the City from an assessment from a brand new building which is very different from a remodel. Ms. Conroy said that someone would win who is not going by the rules because this owner could cover 100% of the lot, which wouldn't happen if he had been truthful in the beginning by admitting that he was going to demolish this building. Ms. Conroy said that she appreciated the Commissioners going to the site and stated that she had called the Inspector for the area and received no phone call back because people were asking her as a City official to find something out. Ms. Conroy said that she finally called Director Chiu who called her right back and went out to the site. Ms. Conroy said that it was a frustrating experience to watch this whole thing as a neighbor and said that when the Department is talking about notification and revising the unlawful demolition issue something should be done about notification in neighborhoods such as Junipero Serra where only two or three neighbors would be notified in the 300-foot radius. Ms. Conroy said that because of the site and the size of this building the notification process was faulty so maybe this is something the Commission could revisit. Ms. Conroy said that the project sponsor did come to a homeowner's meeting, but did not bring an architect. Ms. Conroy stated that the owner was asked at that homeowner's meeting to meet with the neighbors at the site last Saturday and was told in no uncertain terms to bring an architect and an engineer. Ms. Conroy said when the neighbors showed up at 10:00 a.m. there were many, many neighbors that were upset about this situation and there was no architect or no engineer present. Ms. Conroy said that the project sponsor's council is saying that he met with people and is meeting with people, but stated that he is not bringing answers to people and not being fair in saying that he had these meetings because they are not productive. Ms. Conroy thanked the Commission.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he had a couple of points of clarification. Mr. Hutchinson said that he, in the normal course of City business went out with Commissioner Guinnane to see what was going on and Commissioner Guinnane suggested that Commissioner Santos as a structural engineer go out to the property. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was no hearing that was held at the site; it was just the Department and the Commissioners going out there for fact finding. Mr. Hutchinson said that his staff did not say that because the neighbors were in support of it that the Department would just let it go. Mr. Hutchinson said that he was just saying that when he and Commissioner Santos went out there and were videotaped they were surprised because there was an African American gentleman, Lonnie, who portrayed himself as the President of the homeowner's association who expressed support for the project as well as the other people there.

Commissioner Guinnane said that there have been three permits issued for the project; one for the addition on top of the existing house; the other two, which was one for the foundation, and one for the stucco. Commissioner Guinnane asked what prompted those two permit and was it that the Inspector caught work going beyond the scope of the permits and told the project sponsor to get a permit or what. Mr. Hutchinson said that typically if the Department asks for revised permits staff must have seen something on the foundation that would indicate that there needed to be a permit for additional work. Mr. Hutchinson said that clearly there were three alteration permit issued on this project.

Commissioner Brown reminded members of the public that the Commission was trying to keep comments to the allotted three minutes.

Mr. Lonnie Lawson introduced himself as President of the Ingleside Terraces' Home Association and said he was the African American who took pictures while at a meeting on September 5^th. Mr. Lawson said that at that particular meeting it was discussed about what the organization was concerned about and as a result were taken throughout the site to get an explanation of what was done, what was approved and so forth. Mr. Lawson said that his basic concern came about as a result of the group asking specific questions, but were not able to get specific answers. Mr. Lawson said that it seemed that something was being covered up. Mr. Lawson said that the organization was not so concerned about penalizing a person who is interested in building the property, but there are concerns about people being up front.

Mr. Patrick McGee said that he has been a resident of Ingleside Terraces for approximately twenty-five years. Mr. McGee said that his question to the Commission was whether or not this homeowner is a contractor or does he have a contractor working on the job. Mr. McGee said that if the owner is a contractor he wanted to know if there have been any Code violations against this individual in the past. Mr. McGee stated that if the owner is a contractor and has had Code violations then he thought that the Department needs to look at them a little deeper to see what has gone on in the past and what is going on now. Mr. McGee said that he might say that ignorance of the Codes and the laws of San Francisco and the Building Department is not acceptable. Mr. McGee said that the Department needs to take a stand on these kinds of operations and do something about them. Mr. McGee said that the Commissioners were skirting the issue and were kind of iffy about what kind of a stand they were taking on this whole project. Mr. McGee said that he wanted to see a stand taken that was going to stop this sort of thing once and for all to get rid of this problem throughout the City. Mr. McGee said that this is a project that the City should take a stand on by making this man pay for what he has done, if he has done anything illegal. Mr. McGee said that he would recommend that the Commission should look at the projects that are covered up by ten-foot sheets of plywood and that should be outlawed and the contractor would have to put up cyclone fencing so the public could see what is taking place. Mr. McGee thanked the Commission.

Commissioner Santos said that Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Hutchinson about the three permits that were issued to this site. Commissioner Santos said that typically an Inspector would go out to the site and if he saw something that shouldn't be done he would write a Notice of Violation. Commissioner Santos asked if the Notice of Violation (NOV) would typically require the owner to submit a new set of drawings. Mr. Hutchinson said that it could be a correction notice. Commissioner Santos asked if there were notices written against this project. Mr. Hutchinson said that he did not have a copy of a correction notice for this property that the Inspector wrote for the foundation, but he did have a copy of an NOV that was issued June 9, 2003 where the Inspector saw something unusual and asked the owner to come in for a new permit so it could be reevaluated as far as the extent of it. Mr. Hutchinson said that there was a second NOV issued on August 1, 2003 for exceeding work and all work was stopped at that time. Mr. Hutchinson said that then it was decided to hold the hearing that is scheduled for November 7, 2003. Commissioner Santos asked if it was the same Inspector who wrote the notices. Mr. Hutchinson said that it was Inspector John Lee and Senior Inspector Andy Green was involved, as was Chief Inspector Wing Lau. Commissioner Santos asked if this was unrelated to the complaints. Mr. Hutchinson said that this was parallel to the complaints because the Department was getting complaints from the neighborhood. Mr. Hutchinson said that as Commissioner Santos said in a remodel there are always going to be changes, as people change their minds or dry rot or damage is discovered, but this project became a real concern when the neighbors saw the twelve-foot wall being erected and more and more of the original house being torn down. Mr. Hutchison said that the Inspectors were finding things and the neighbors were calling so this was a parallel sort of thing.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the neighbors talk about the twelve foot sheets of plywood going up and at that point all that was left was the front wall, the sides, the back and everything was completely gutted. Commissioner Guinnane asked where the Inspector was when that wall was going up and the whole house was gone. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Inspector went out when the Department was called to schedule an inspection of the foundation. Mr. Hutchinson said that typically the Inspector would not go out again until all of the framing was done, the roof was on and the outside was sheathed and then the Department would go out and inspect that work and say that it was okay to cover so the property could be insulated. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Inspector went out for the foundation and then went out again because of neighborhood complaints and that timeframe was between June until August 1^st. Commissioner Guinnane asked what state the house was in when the Inspector went out for the foundation inspection. Mr. Hutchinson said that he would have to go back and check. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he could not visualize how these individuals were able to put all these walls in and work in that crawl space because these walls were about 10"-12" wide. Commissioner Guinnane said that it looked like the walls were shot in with a transit, the joists had to be removed on the street level and said he did not know how they shored up the whole upper floor. Commissioner Guinnane said that it seemed to him that when the joists came out, the whole floor came out and the foundation was put in and at that point there was nothing there unless someone has a picture that shows something different.

Director Chiu said that was not being defensive about staff's actions, but he did recall that Wing Lau was telling him about one of the adjoining property owners was complaining about potentially moving some one by sheeting and replacing it with plywood sheeting. Director Chiu said that he and Wing went out and took a look at it and in fairness to staff at that time the plywood wall was not up there, and the ground floor partition was still there. Commissioner Guinnane asked when that was. Director Chiu said that he did not know the exact date; it was probably around June. Director Chiu said that when he went back after that first drive by visit and went back a second time for an inspection a lot of the walls were gone. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a problem with the time schedule and Director Chiu should go back and check his date book because when on 6/9/03 the complaint was filed so the building was standing at that point and the two floors were up. Commissioner Guinnane said for them to do all that work, do all that foundation work, take down all the ground floor, rebuild it up again and go up with the other floor Director Chiu must have been out there a lot earlier than in June. Director Chiu said that he could check back on the date. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was trying to get a handle on what was done when the Inspector went out there to inspect the pour. Commissioner Santos said that there could be three or four months between the inspection of the foundation and an inspection of the framing.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not believe that there was a one-story house sitting there when the foundations were poured because there is no way that anybody could work underneath in a 30" crawl space and put those walls in as good as they did. Commissioner Guinnane said they look like they were shot in with a transit and just to dig out the rebar and the form it could absolutely not be done and that is why he wouldn't buy off that it was done like that. Commissioner Guinnane said that this was his take on it. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu to look at his calendar to see when he was out there first. Director Chiu said that he drove by as a result of a complaint. Commissioner Guinnane said that it would helpful if any of the public had pictures with dates that would substantiate their claims that would be very helpful.

President Fillon asked if all work had been stopped and when the hearing was scheduled. Director Chiu said that it would be November 7, 2003 and the public would be welcome to testify regarding the project. Commissioner Brown said that he wanted to clarify to the last member of the public that came up and spoke that this meeting was not a hearing on 425 Junipero Serra it was just a report on it. Commissioner Brown said that there was an allegation that the Commissioners were hemming and hawing on this, but right now the Commission was just trying to gather information and had not yet been presented with the record. Commissioner Brown said that at this point it is going to a hearing.

6. Discussion and possible action to create a Building Inspection Commission Unlawful Demolition Committee to hold hearings on unlawful demolitions. [Commissioner Guinnane]

President Fillon said that this item was connected to the previous discussions regarding unlawful demolitions. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had asked for this item to be on the calendar for the simple reason that the Commission is set up with seven individuals and he wanted to set up a sub-committee of three individuals. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was looking to set up the sub-committee with himself as a general contractor, Rodrigo Santos as an engineer and Bobbie Sue Hood as an architect. Commissioner Guinnane said that he and Commissioner Santos had taken a personal hand over the years and gone out and looked at projects for persons such as the underdogs that have problems with the City. Commissioner Guinnane said that he felt that by putting a sub-committee in place it would be a lot fairer to the applicant because there would be three very knowledgeable individuals who will take the time to go out and look at the property and try and get a handle on it. Commissioner Guinnane said that he attended a hearing last Thursday where a hearing officer from DPW held a hearing and said that he wasn't overly impressed by it and from listening to the testimony he didn't even think that the hearing officer went out and looked at the property that he was holding the hearing on. Commissioner Guinnane stated that it was a hearing on a property located on 27^th Avenue, another issue of unlawful demolition. Commissioner Guinnane said that there seems to be a lot of these kinds of properties out there and right now there is one at 1223 Capitol Avenue, one at 651 - 29^th Street, 641 - 27^th, 425 Juniper Serra, 271 - 17^th and 54 Cresta Vista. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know how many more were out there, but is was his intent to be fair and have three individuals hold these public hearings to make the best possible decision for the Department and the applicant. President Fillon asked if the Code would need to be changed in order to do this because right now it calls for a hearing officer. Commissioner Guinnane said that if this was a concern he was sure that Frank could appoint the Commissioners.

Director Chiu said that he was in full support of what Commissioner Guinnane was proposing, but said that he wanted to make sure that before there is a hearing the language would be very clear that this could be done. Director Chiu said that the Code says that the Director must have a hearing and does not even say that the Director must appoint a hearing officer. Director Chiu said that traditionally he has appointed Division Chiefs to hold the hearings particularly for abatements and even unlawful demolitions. Director Chiu stated the reason the Department changed the policy to hire somebody from the outside is because the citizens or the project sponsor in the past when dealing with unlawful demolitions thought that it was tainted because the Director was selecting people who worked for the Department. Director Chiu said that because of that concern Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian suggested that it would be better to select someone from outside of the Department. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at 103.3 it says that the Director shall hold a hearing within a reasonable period of time after discovering that an unlawful residential demolition may have taken place; the Director shall cause notice to be given to the owners and so on. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he thought the Commission did have the jurisdiction instead of farming it out to DPW and it would be fairer to have a hearing by three individuals rather than just one. Commissioner Brown asked what would happen if one of these cases were to be appealed because generally it would come to the Abatement Appeals Board. Commissioner Guinnane said that all of these cases, should they be appealed, would go to the Board of Permit Appeals which is a five body Commission. Commissioner Brown said that there would be no conflict. Commissioner Marks said that if this committee was to be formed she would rather that Commissioner Brown be a member rather than Commissioner Hood. Commissioner Guinnane said that if Commissioner Brown had the time and did not mind going out to look at the property he would have no problem with that at all. Commissioner Santos said that he had no issue either. Commissioner Brown said that his only concern about being a part of this would be if he had the right expertise to judge structural integrity or even the work that would be going on. Commissioner Brown stated that he was not trying to skirt being on the committee because he thought it would be good to have his voice on there, but wondered about having the expertise. Commissioner Marks said that if there were questions that Commissioner Brown had he could contact staff for the answers and part of making a decision is fact finding.

President Fillon suggested that Commissioner Guinnane be chair of this committee. Commissioner Guinnane said that he has put a lot of time and effort into this issue and is willing to spend the time on these projects to go out and look at them and to help the underdog when it comes to bureaucracy in the City. Commissioner Guinnane said that a few times he has come to the aid of different individuals and the City Attorney has gotten after him and asked him what it is with him and a certain individual. Commissioner Guinnane said that he tries to help everybody and is no longer building in the City so he has nothing to gain from this. Commissioner Guinnane said that Rodrigo Santos has been the same and has gone out and done pro bono work for individuals who have come before the Commission that had no money. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would assume that Bobbie Sue would put the time into this and is very bright as an architect, but said that he had no problem if Commissioner Brown wanted to come on board or perhaps they could alternate. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department needs to get a handle on this because it is completely out of control and nothing is being done over at the Board of Supervisors so some interim controls need to be in place as soon as possible. Commissioner Brown said that he would be interested in starting out on this committee. President Fillon said that if the committee needed Commissioner Hood's experience as an architect she could always go out and look at it too, as long as there are not four Commissioners meeting at once. Commissioner Guinnane said that Commissioner Brown would be helpful on the Committee in doing research and handing down a decision because of his law degree.

President Fillon asked how many cases there were to be heard. Commissioner Guinnane said that there were six or seven, but that there would be more coming along. President Fillon asked if it was clear that any decision by this committee would be appealable to the Board of Permit Appeals. Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct and said that he had checked with the City Attorney's Office.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that in the past for unlawful demolition hearings if it is permit issues it goes to the Board of Appeals and they have heard cases in the past; it is not appealable to the BIC because it is a permit issue. Mr. Hutchinson said that he deeply appreciated the Commissions help on this issue as he felt this was much fairer to the applicant and the neighborhood. Mr. Hutchinson said that the six or seven cases that Commissioner Guinnane mentioned are not typical as there is usually only one of two cases per year. Mr. Hutchinson said that along with Junipero Serra the hearing on November 7^th would include a property on 29^th Street, one hearing at 9:00 a.m. and one at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Hutchison said that he would like the committee to be in place for those hearings and to then review the other cases to determine if there would be further hearings. Commissioner Guinnane asked that the hearings for November 7^th be at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to allow for enough time for each case. Commissioner Santos asked if the hearings would be at 1660 Mission Street. Mr. Hutchinson said that was correct; the meetings would be held in Room 2001 and would be recorded. President Fillon asked how the penalties would be defined in these cases. Mr. Hutchinson said that the penalties are defined in the Code, but the most severe penalties by far would be for the project sponsor to replace the building in kind by square footage or a permit could not be obtained for five years. Mr. Hutchinson said that this did not mean that they would have to remove what was on site, but the project sponsor could not proceed with that project for five years in its current state. Commissioner Santos asked if this penalty had ever been imposed on anyone. Mr. Hutchinson said that it had been imposed on more than one occasion and its goes against the title so the property cannot be sold or transferred.

Director Chiu said that most of the project sponsors who were found to have an unlawful demolition appealed their decisions to the Board of Permit Appeals and in most cases the Board of Permit Appeals overturned DBI's decision. Commissioner Santos asked if with the projects that were overturned at the BPA work could be proceeded. Mr. Hutchinson said that sometimes the BPA exacts a condition from the applicant such as a change in design or a cutback on the envelope. Mr. Hutchinson said that there is a process to mediate with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a case on 17^th Avenue in the Richmond district where an individual contractor put a permit through for two units, got it approved and filed for a demo permit and that was approved. Commissioner Guinnane said that on that particular case, when the permits were issued, the contractor did not wait the ten days for the appeal and went ahead and tore down the house. Commissioner Guinnane said that the five-year ban was applied to that particular property and when the five years had lapsed it was down zoned to a single-family dwelling.

Director Chiu said that if the committee finds that there is an unlawful demolition the hearing body does not have a choice about the penalty, but must go according to the Code to enforce these penalties. Commissioner Santos said that the BIC Committee would be just a yes or no as to unlawful demolition and then it could be appealed to the BPA. Commissioner Santos said that the neighbors would be aware that a particular site could be abandoned for five years and would have a say in the potential penalty. Director Chiu said that there was a property on Broadway Street where the project sponsor decided to go back to the original square footage

Ms. Maria Sousa said that she would encourage the Commission to adopt some alternate procedures from those that are already in place for an unlawful demolition permit hearing. Ms. Sousa stated that she was asked by the Board of the Planning Association of the Richmond District to represent the association, which has a dues paying membership of 1,600 households in the Richmond District. Ms. Sousa said that she wanted to emphasize that fact because the attorney for the contractor showed up at the hearing with five signatures of neighbors he alleged were adjoining neighbors which was in fact incorrect and used that to allege that there was community support to allow the property owners to proceed to build their new two unit structure on what had originally been a two-story single family dwelling. Ms. Sousa said that the association was able to testify that it had been contacted by numerous neighbors with their concern about the demolition that had occurred. Ms. Sousa stated that the neighbor who owned the immediately adjacent property had received notice of the hearing came to the meeting even though he does live in the City because he was so concerned about the illegal demolition. Ms. Sousa said that this person testified that his tenants repeatedly spoke to the contractor's employees who told the tenants that they knew they were demolishing. Ms. Sousa stated that the contactor testified that he knew that he was proceeding with an illegal demolition, but was sorry. Ms. Sousa said that the property owner's attorney alleged that this was an elderly couple that needed this home to live in. Ms. Sousa said that she was only allowed three minutes, but in those three minutes pointed out the property owners lived ten blocks away in a property for which they have an owner's exemption and in the same year that they bought the property on 27^th Avenue they sold another property on 31^st Avenue for over $1M. Ms. Sousa said that these were sophisticated real estate investors and they are not impoverished and not unknowledgeable. Ms. Sousa stated that the hearing officer was an employee of the Public Utilities Commission, a very nice gentleman, but he conducted the hearing by reading a typed script obviously typed for him. Ms. Sousa said that the hearing officer was so discombobulated by the fact that there were public there to testify that he closed the hearing without allowing the contractor's attorneys and owner's attorneys to rebut. Ms. Sousa said that they made statements that because the public was limited they could not counter so this was the very first demolition hearing that she participated in and as a member of the public found it very frustrating. Ms. Sousa said that in her earlier testimony she stated that there was growing anger and cynicism about this agency, department and Commission and very frankly she wanted the Commission to know that Supervisor McGoldrick's legislation was approved by the Planning Commission last week and that legislation was introduced not because there are only two, five, six or only seven demolitions as there are numerous demolitions. Ms. Sousa said that as Annemarie Conroy testified, neighbors have to be incredibly persistent for an Inspector to come out and determine that there is an illegal demolition. Ms. Sousa said that she would support on behalf of the Richmond District Homeowners an alternate procedure for illegal demolitions. Ms. Sousa said that otherwise the voters would be taking action through initiative.

President Fillon said that this is why the Commission was taking action to change the procedures because the way things were proceeding before were inconsistent and were actually unfair to the owner as much as to the complainants.

Mr. Paul Conroy said that this was the first time that he had attending a BIC meeting and said that he was very impressed by the amount of expertise and the discourse that takes place among the Commissioners. Mr. Conroy said that he wanted to encourage the Commission to press forward with these new procedures. Mr. Conroy said that he thought it was an excellent idea to have a committee to be comprised of the Commissioners because the very expertise that got the Commissioners on the BIC could be brought to bear on this issue that is so very important to the people of San Francisco. Mr. Conroy stated that he thought the people of San Francisco would be very well served if the Commission proceeded with Commissioner Guinnane's recommendation. Mr. Conroy said that he was surprised that there was not an Assistant City Attorney present at the BIC hearings and said that he would expect that the City Attorney's Office would extend its services to the BIC to provide advice during the hearing. Mr. Conroy said that a couple of questions that were raised about procedural matters and the laws and ordinances could be answered by the City Attorney's representative.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion to for a subcommittee to hear unlawful demolitions to be comprised of three members of the BIC, which would be Roy Guinnane, Rodrigo Santos and Matt Brown. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Commissioner Brown could not make a meeting if an alternate could attend the hearing and would recommend that it be Bobbie Sue Hood. Commissioner Brown said that would be fine with him. Commissioner Santos seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 042-03

President Fillon asked if there was anything in the Code about conducting these hearings and asked if the meetings would be conducted as if they were a Commission committee hearing with a recording, and following the guidelines of the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act.

At 3:25 p.m. the Commission took a break.

The meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m.

7. Update on the MIS Committee meetings and status of MIS personnel. Discussion and possible action to approve proposed reorganization. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Director Chiu said that he had previously informed the Commission that he has been working with the MIS Committee. Director Chiu stated that in April he had asked DTIS to send a person to give DBI an assessment on the status of its MIS organization. Director Chiu said that a couple of months ago he received a report back and shared the assessment and the recommendations with the MIS committee, which is composed of Commissioner Guinnane and President Fillon. Director Chiu said that the report found that the entire MIS Division has been bloated up in terms of salaries and classifications. Director Chiu said that in taking just two positions away the average salary for eight out of the ten employees is about $100,000. Director Chiu said that he would have to take responsibility because he signed off on several of the JAQs requested by Marcus Armstrong and forwarded to him by Amy Lee. Mr. Chiu said that he would admit that he did not have the expertise in MIS and as a result felt blindsided. Mr. Chiu stated that now that he has this report he wanted to move forward to rectify the problem. Mr. Chiu said that along with the highly paid staff the report found that most of the service requests were sent to outside contractors because staff was not qualified to do the upgrades and other projects. Mr. Chiu said that within the organization there were only three programmers and they were overwhelmed with requests from the various divisions so some of those jobs were also being sent to outside contractors. Director Chiu stated that these are the major concerns.

Director Chiu said that right now DBI has an Acting Manager from DTIS who is over the organization, but who is not an employee of DBI, but is working through a work order with DTIS. Director Chiu stated that currently the organization chart shows that there are only three programmers, but two have resigned and one is on an extended sick leave. Director Chiu said that he did get clearance from the committee to hire two contract employees from COIT to do the day-to-day service requests. Director Chiu referred to the current organization which has two positions for 1044 Network Operators with the salaries being $108,000, two 1044 positions with the salaries being over $100,000 and one 1022 and one 1051 with the salary range being $63,000 - $68,000. Director Chiu said that the proposed organization would move the network personnel more into programming so there would be more programmers and the Department would be doing fewer contracts. Director Chiu said that the new organization would downgrade a lot of the networking engineers positions. Director Chiu stated that the top salary for the network administration would be a 1024 with the highest salary, not including fringe benefits, being $87,000 compared to $108,000. Director Chiu said that he believed that this was what needed to be done to move forward to run the organization more efficiently. Director Chiu said that unless the Commission had questions, he would urge the Commission to move forward with the proposed reorganization. Director Chiu stated that he had met with DHR and the Mayor's Office regarding this proposed organization. Director Chiu stated that he had met with the Union and the employees themselves. Director Chiu said that as a result of this reorganization three people could be affected, meaning that because of downgrading certain positions the current employees, unless they want to remain with DBI at a lower classification and lower salary, might be bumped to other positions in another department such as the community college, DPW, Muni or DTIS. Director Chiu said that the Department was working to make sure that these people have jobs in their current positions. Director Chiu said that he would continue to discuss with the union representatives what would happen after that.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the MIS has been a real problem with him for years and said that it was his position that the MIS has been mismanaged for the past seven years. Commissioner Guinnane said that when Marcus Armstrong was hired he did not know what process he went through or who brought him on, but Commissioner Guinnane said that he was led to believe that when Mr. Armstrong was hired it was DTIS that brought him on board and were the ones that were on the panel that recommended him to this Department. Director Chiu said that he did not believe that Commissioner Guinnane's statement was accurate, but stated that he thought that Marcus Armstrong was already an employee whether that was through temporary employment or permanent employment at some point. Director Chiu said that when somebody left and created the opening for a MIS Supervisor/Manager Mr. Armstrong applied for that. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Guinnane was correct in stating that DBI did request a DTIS Manager and someone from COIT to sit on the panel to select the employee. Director Chiu said that as a result of that recommendation DBI went ahead and offered the position to Mr. Armstrong. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu what assurances he had today that these people coming from DTIS are qualified. Director Chiu said that right now there is only one DTIS Manager at DBI who reports to him. Director Chiu said that right now there are six vacancies whether they were due to voluntary retirement or resignation and two people on extended sick leave since July 1^st. Director Chiu said that there is only one DTIS employee who happens to be managing the Department. Director Chiu said that for the proposed reorganization DBI does plan to hire permanent employees with the proper requisitions who are qualified. Director Chiu said at this time DBI was not having any DTIS people to fill these positions, but there are DTIS people helping to fill these positions to help with the networking and programming. Director Chiu said that these people are working on a work order, but these people would be eligible to apply for these positions when the jobs become available. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the salary was right now for the DTIS individual that is Acting Manager. Director Chiu said that the current Manager is being paid the same salary as was being paid to Marcus Armstrong with a $2,000 per month overhead to DTIS for her position.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had a copy of a fax that was sent to Director Chiu from Taras Madison dated 9/10/03 that said that Ms. Madison was sent two COIT contracts that were processed while she was out of the office; one contract was for $50,400 and another for $65,000. Commissioner Guinnane said that Ms. Madison's fax stated that it was her understanding that all contracts would have to be approved by the BIC/MIS committee and she was asking for Committee approval. Commissioner Guinnane said that Ms. Madison said that no one could start work prior to a purchase order (PO) being issued and stated that to date there were no PO. Ms. Madison's fax said that the contract did not yet exist and per Director Chiu's note to Alfredo the programmers were already at DBI. Commissioner Guinnane said Ms. Madison stated that the PO included one employee's name and then the name was crossed out and another name was written in. Commissioner Guinnane asked what this was about. Director said that these were the two programmers that the Department had to bring in to do a lot of the service requests. Director Chiu stated that he talked to both Commissioners on the committee to let them know that there were over 130 internal service requests alone and programming had to be done and there was only one programmer to do all of these service requests. Director Chiu said that he mentioned to the Commission committee at that time that there were several large projects that had to be done such as the judge's order regarding AIMCO that would take two, three, or four weeks to get done. Director Chiu said that, at the same time Taras Madison was requesting that the surcharge for BPA had to be done and Rosemary Bosque had the lien program that had to be completed. Director Chiu said that he remembered discussing this with the two Commissioners and it was decided that people needed to be hired as soon as possible so he asked Sue Metzger to go ahead and get the job done and that is what those two positions are about.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu how the Commission knew that the Acting Manager that is in place for MIS is qualified and what is being done to search for a Manager that is qualified since there is so much talent available in the outside world. Director Chiu said that at this time in order to hire a permanent replacement the Department would have to do a requisition and go through the Mayor's Office and get the blessing of the Controller's Office and DHR, and then advertise. Director Chiu said that there is the potential that someone who might have been bumped from another department would have to be hired by DBI. Director Chiu said that there were a lot of things to be done, but meanwhile someone needs to run this division. Director Chiu said that when the Department is ready to move forward DBI would advertise and go through the process and get someone permanently.

Commissioner Santos asked if Director Chiu was asking for the Commission to approve this proposal. Director Chiu said that was correct; he was asking the Commission to downgrade these positions. Commissioner Guinnane asked that since the DTIS Manager has been put in place temporarily what the Department had spent or committed to through DTIS. Director Chiu said that from April to June the Department spent approximately $30,000, which is Ms. Metzger's salary plus the $2,000 per month for DTIS. Director Chiu stated that in July there was a major crash of the computer system and it wasn't backing up; DBI staff tried to fix it, but it wasn't getting done so Director Chiu authorized someone from DTIS to come and fix the problem. Director Chiu said that from July to August an additional $20,000 was spent. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the problem was with the system being down and why the Interim Manager resolved the issues without bring in an outside consultant. Director Chiu said that MIS has different levels of expertise so someone could be hired for networking who knows how to deal with that or someone could be hired for the big picture that knows how to run an organization. Director Chiu said that he was not sure that the Department could hire someone who would know everything including how to fix or how to program. Director Chiu stated that MIS has two major programs, one is the application to do programming and another side of the organization does the actual hardware networking. Director Chiu said that in the past the Department did not have anybody even the former MIS Manager could not perform the networking. Director Chiu said that the Department did try to have Sukh who was the programmer to try to program something and some of the internal people tried, but it was not done. Director Chiu said that in the past he was told that outside contractors were hired just to do patch up work. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was really troubled with DTIS bringing a Manager on board and DTIS having full control of the MIS especially since they were on the panel that brought Marcus on board. Commissioner Guinnane said that Marcus is gone and he did not know if Marcus was coming back, but there is a lot of staff leaving and Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know who was qualified, unqualified, who was overpaid or underpaid, but whatever the outcome is he wanted it cleaned up once and for all. Commissioner Guinnane said that he heard some discussion that at one time the Department had approximately $1.6M left for MIS and now all of a sudden the Department is going over to the Board of Supervisors looking for more money. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the additional money was for. Director Chiu said that he did not know where Commissioner Guinnane heard this information, but the Department is talking about going for a negative supplemental in order to reclassify these positions and the Department is downgrading. Director Chiu said that the Department would be saving about $700,000 not even counting the potential work that would be contracted. Director Chiu said that the Department would have to go for a negative supplement and go back in front of the Board of Supervisors to do this proposed reorganization should the Commission approve it. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many in house developers the Department would have versus regular employees with outside contracting. Director Chiu said that when the Department is ready to hire permanent employees he would work with the MIS Committee to discuss the process and determine what kind of people DBI wants to hire. Director Chiu stated that there is only one person who is working full time at DBI from DTIS and the other people are working as needed on a temporary basis to run the organization.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what assurances Director Chiu has given the Commission that the temporary or Acting Manager from DTIS is qualified to run the Department. Commissioner Guinnane said that Commissioner Hood had asked for this person's resume and said that he was concerned about her qualifications. Director Chiu said that he included the job announcement in the proposal that was presented to the Commissioners for a 1071 that lists the criteria for that position. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was asking for the resume of the individual that is acting today and is she qualified. Director Chiu said that when the Commission asked for this in the past he went back and checked on the Acting Manager's resume and all of her credentials. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission had never gotten a copy of this information. Director Chiu said that he wanted to make sure that the Commission did not get into the employee details and said that he would check to make sure it was allowable for the Commission to get a copy and if it was not a problem he would be happy to share a copy with the Commission along with all of the credentials that have been verified.

Commissioner Guinnane said that at this point he would not be in favor of moving along with the reorganization until the Commission gets more of a handle on this. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he knew that the Department was down in the number of staff, but said that he would like to look at the employees that are left to see their qualifications. Director Chiu said that he is concerned the longer that this gets dragged on it is a problem because the Department still has to function. Commissioner Guinnane said that this has been out of control for eight years and said that there has been money going out the door so another month or two would not really bother things that much because it has been going on for years. Commissioner Santos said that since Commissioner Guinnane had been so involved in this situation he would go along with the Commissioner's suggestion to get more information. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not mind making changes, but when it is a sweeping change and there are outside companies controlling the Department he really had a problem with that because on down the road they could become permanent employees. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Guinnane is assuming that the job is open. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would have to keep assuming that until the Director tells him different because there is an Acting Manager in place and he doesn't know if that individual is qualified or not. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the Director has not shown anything to the Commission to show that she is qualified. Director Chiu said that he had concerns that the employees records or resume might not come under the Commission's purview. Director Chiu said that this individual was in a tough position because she has to work with the current employees, yet she has to come up with a plan that might involve some of these employees not having a job.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how much money was set aside for MIS right now and how much of that money is unspent. Director Chiu said that the Department had not contracted any project, but the only money that had been contracted was for the two people that the Department desperately needed. Commissioner Guinnane asked what authority the Acting Manager had as far as a spending limit and said he was concerned because he was very troubled about the authority that the former Manager had. Commissioner Guinnane asked how much Ms. Metzger could spend without getting the Director's approval. Director Chiu said that he had seen any request for spending by MIS and said that this was discussed with the committee as far as the ongoing maintenance contracts for approximately $2,000 or $3,000 with the understanding that the Director could approve these small amounts. Director Chiu stated that Ms. Metzger had no spending limit, but everything comes though him. Director Chiu said that his goal would be to work with the Commission committee to approve any RFPs or any contracts. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were any spending limits on Director Chiu. Director Chiu said that he had asked the Commission to set a limit. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted the Commission to come up with a dollar amount because he did not realize that the old Manager had so much authority with no oversight on him or any checks and balances.

Director Chiu said that he understood where Commissioner Guinnane was coming from, but said that he would still urge the Commission to approve the proposal because DBI needs to move forward because the Department still has to go before the Board of Supervisors and other things so the longer this is delayed the longer the Department has to rely on someone else. Director Chiu said that there is still a long way to go. Commissioner Guinnane said that Director Chiu has been involved in the MIS for a lot of years and there has been a lot of discussion about salaries and people changing classifications. Commissioner Guinnane said that he understood that under the old management there were some classification changes being made that weren't approved and the Manager had to give a letter basically stating why they should be approved and the Director signed off on it. Commissioner Guinnane said that was why some of these employees are making all this money and he didn't know if they were qualified or not. Commissioner Guinnane said that several years have gone by and nothing has been cleared up and millions have been spent. Director Chiu said that he admitted that there were some problems and that he should have spent more time with MIS in the past. Director Chiu said that he relied on the Assistant Director helping him on this, but ultimately it is his shop and he would take full responsibility for this mess, but said that he had learned his lesson and this should move forward. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Director talks about the Assistant Director and said that he did not know if the Director was referring to Amy Lee or Jim Hutchinson or whoever, but said that when Ms. Lee took over the MIS for the very short time that she did, she uncovered some things that were going on and made appropriate referrals. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought there were too many layers of bureaucracy and the Director should have had complete control over the Managers. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was not saying that it would have prevented the problems, but said that he had a real problem with it because all of this money is gone and the Department has nothing for it. Director Chiu said that if the Commission wished the MIS Manager could report directly to the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission could not watch what was going on everyday in the Department and the Director needs to be a hands on Manager. Director Chiu said that he has been spending more time on MIS issues, up to 80% of his time on some days. Director Chiu said that he still thought that this needed to move forward.

President Fillon said that he understood that Commissioner Guinnane wanted a couple of more weeks to work on this and said that the committee did give direction to the Director to move quickly on this reorganization to make something happen. President Fillon said that as soon as Commissioner Guinnane is comfortable this should move forward. Commissioner Guinnane said that the direction that was given was that there was going to be an assessment of the MIS and then do a search for a Manager because it was discussed that there was so much talent outside that the Department should be able to get a good candidate and then all of a sudden something changed. Commissioner Guinnane said that the woman that was doing the evaluation for DTIS all of sudden was in as Acting Manager and that was never his intent. Commissioner Guinnane said that this was just laid on the committee. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to discuss this further at another forum.

President Fillon said that this would be continued until the next meeting. President Fillon asked for public comment on this item.

Mr. Ron Dicks introduced himself as Vice-President of I.F.P.T., Local 21 who represents the employees of DTIS and just as there is a lot of anxiety and confusion at this level, at the employee level people are bewildered about their status and what is going to happen to them in the future. Mr. Dicks said that he wanted to say that unequivocally the Union is committed to sit down and talk with the Director or anyone else who is interested in trying to resolve this issue. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Acting Manager from DTIS was a member of Local 21. Mr. Dicks said that she was not. Commissioner Guinnane asked who else at DTIS was a member of the Local. Mr. Dicks said that it was all of the other employees. Commissioner Guinnane asked if that meant the current employees that DBI had before. Mr. Dicks said that was correct. Commissioner Guinnane said that there were some new people coming on board, like outside contractors, and asked if they were members of Local 21. Mr. Dicks said they were not. Director Chiu said that the contractors were not DBI employees. Mr. Dicks introduced Ms. Spike Kahn.

Ms. Kahn introduced herself as the Local 21 Union Rep and said that she represented all of the IT employees in the City and County of San Francisco at DTIS and in other departments. Ms. Kahn said that everybody on the MIS organization chart, except for the Manager, falls under Local 21's bargaining unit and when there is an outside contractor, unlike the building trades who also represent the private sector, Local 21 represents IT professionals only who work in the City and County. Ms. Kahn said that when contractors are hired that is non-union work and as such, she would support reorganization so that once and for all there could be a structure in the MIS in the Department of Building Inspection that would have permanent employees and would not have the need for those two outside contractors that are doing the programming. Ms. Kahn stated that in the long term the union does want to support this reorganization to get permanent staff in there. Ms. Kahn said that DTIS is the appropriate department to do an analysis and an outside contractor does not have to be hired because DTIS has several hundred employees that are all experts in IT. Ms. Kahn said that the 1071 Manager' s position is an MEA represented position so the 1071 would not be a union member and in general the Union does not represent management. Ms. Kahn said that her issue is that of the remaining workers there is a question of classification and specifically there are two employees working at DBI now who would not be under the proposed reorganization and would not be carried over. Ms. Kahn said that specifically one problem is that there is a 1051 (IS Business Analyst, Assistant) who is working in DBI alongside a 1022 (IS Administrator 2) and in the Union's opinion is doing that function that is going to be continued in the future reorganization, however that individual unless she is reclassified to a 1022 position will then end up out of a job. Ms. Kahn stated that even if that person then has bumping rights to bump somebody else that still ends up with one person on the streets eventually. Ms. Kahn said that 1051 positions are relics from an old age and there are only five in the whole City where a 1022 position is interchangeable. Ms. Kahn said that if the 1051 position should be reevaluated and reclassified and that is what this reorganization is trying to do; however, this individual has put in a JAQ to become a 1022 and although that was previously approved by both DBI and DHR it is now being revisited because it was approved through recommendations of other reclassifications at DBI in MIS. Ms. Kahn said that this reclassification is now suspect and it is being asked if this person is really qualified. Ms. Kahn said that there is a situation whereby this reorganization will negatively affect at least two current employees and one temporary employee whose position ends in December. Ms. Kahn stated that this temporary employee is being told that he can apply for a position that would be a $6,000 per year pay cut. Ms. Kahn said she understood that the whole issue is to save money, but her concern is the individuals that will end up either bumping or going on unemployment.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the salary was for a 1051. Ms. Kahn said that she did not know that off the top of her head, but it is down in the $60,000's. Director Chiu said it was $63,000. Ms. Kahn said that the employee's feeling is that she has replaced the other 1022 when he is absent and works alongside the other 1022 and has put in her request for reclassification a while ago and it got stalled in some nowhere place. Ms. Kahn said that this issue needs to be resolved. Ms. Kahn stated that the Director had agreed to meet with the Union to try to resolve this issue, but said that the DTIS Acting Manager says that this employee is not qualified. Ms. Kahn said that her issue is that this employee has been at DBI for several years doing this type of work and if she needed training why wasn't she trained to get whatever expertise would make her qualified. Ms. Kahn said that she would like to work with the Department to bring this employee up to the 1022 position so that there would be one less person who would bump or be on the street after this reorganization happens. Commissioner Guinnane said that if this person was not qualified he could not figure out how this individual got the position in the first place. Ms. Kahn said she agreed, and asked how the Department could have this person working in the position all this time and not be qualified and that is why the Union believes that the employee is qualified. Ms. Kahn said that she would like to meet with the subcommittee and have the Union involved in this so that the Union's position could be heard and the committee could evaluate both the position of management and employees. Ms. Kahn stated that the employee's voices had not been heard up to this point and said that the Union just got the reorganization chart. Ms. Kahn said that the Union and the Department need to work together because it is human lives that are at stake and families that are all going to be misplaced. Commissioner Guinnane asked whom the individual employee was that Ms. Kahn was speaking about. Ms. Kahn said that she did not think that the Union was supposed to talk to the Commission about specific personnel, but said that there are existing employees who are not part of the new organizational chart. Ms. Kahn said that she respected the fact that the Department had to clean up the MIS and said she was offering her services to do that from the employees' perspective.

9. Discussion and possible action regarding the proposal for revising hiring procedures currently employed by DBI for both Permanent Civil service and temporary appointments. [John Marquez, Departmental Personnel Officer]

This item was continued because Mr. Marquez was not available.

10. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

a. Memorandum dated September 5, 2003 from Director Frank Chiu to All DBI Staff regarding implementation of the IVR - Automated Telephone System.

b. Letter dated September 19, 2003 from Director Frank Chiu to Mary A. Powell, Foreperson, San Francisco Civil Grand Jury regarding response to Mr. Jack McNulty concerning DBI Housing Inspection Services.

c. Memorandum dated September 15, 2003 to the BIC from Deputy Director William Wong regarding the Chronology of Events concerning AB-038: Investigative Fees and Other Penalties for Work Without Permits or Exceeding the Scope of Permits.

d. Copies of thank you letters received from the public commending DBI employees and Director Chiu's response letters to the public.

President Fillon said that he would like to commend the employees in item 10d who received thank you letters from the public commending their service. The employees were Zan Turner, Heidi Lee, Laurence Kornfield, Mary Gould and Lou Aurea.

11. Review and approval of the minutes of the August 20, 2003 meeting.

Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 043-03

12. Review Commissioner's Questions and Matters.

a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu to look into 4809 Mission Street. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there were three lots with two of the lots having buildings done on a site plan. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Plan Checker that plan checked the material in the Department was Edward Fang and then all of a sudden he became an Inspector and inspected the projects. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is no parking for these buildings and said that he was trying to figure out how these building were built with a site permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was the Fire Department that actually caught this. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was really troubled to see that Ed Fang is a Building Inspector and said that in checking this was not his area at the time. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a CFC that was given, but again there is no record of the CFC in the microfiche. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not see how all of this could happen and said he wondered where checks and balances came into play.

Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and Wing Lau alerted him that there is an ongoing investigation regarding this project and said that he would report back to the Commission when the investigation is complete. Commissioner Guinnane said that this project was plan checked on 4/28/01 and stated that he did not know when Mr. Fang became a Building Inspector out in the field. Commissioner Guinnane said that it looked like Mr. Fang had done all of the inspections at this property so obviously it wasn't his area and said that he was sure that the Inspector in that district was not sick every one of those times. Commissioner Guinnane said that he believed that there were some serious problems with this property and asked Director Chiu to follow up on the situation for the next meeting.

President Fillon said that he skipped item #8 and asked if that could be continue until the next meeting. The Commissioners agreed.

13. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

There was no public comment.

14. Adjournment.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos, that the meeting be adjourned.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 044-03

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary